ReviewJournal of inherited metabolic disease2026
Medicine Development and Access for Rare Diseases: Can We Do Better?
Review in Journal of inherited metabolic disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Medicine Development and Access for Rare Diseases: Can We Do Better?Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent advances in molecular biology and genomics have significantly enhanced our understanding of rare diseases. While enabling the development of highly targeted therapies, it also leads to complexity in the development, regulation, and accessibility of orphan medicines. Unmet need and great promise of new medicines, combined with high prices and uncertain effectiveness, highlight the shortcomings of the system, particularly evident for highly specialized treatment options, such as advanced therapy medicinal products and RNA-based treatments. While all stakeholders in this field must take responsibility, academic researchers and clinicians have a vital role which must be strengthened to improve access to and affordability of medicines. Regarding academia-driven orphan medicine development, academic contributions are predominantly concentrated in the early research phases, often lacking continuity throughout the full development pipeline. There is limited expertise in regulatory affairs and market access, and little involvement in medicine pricing or licensing negotiations. Recommendations include sustained academic engagement across all development stages, integration of regulatory and market access training into educational programs, and the implementation of socially responsible frameworks. Strategies promoting the rational use of orphan medicines should be embedded across the entire product lifecycle. Industry-driven development typically interacts primarily with regulatory agencies and payers, with academia playing a reactive and, at times, conflicted role. Independent academic-industry interaction is recommended, with early involvement in clinical trial design. Additionally, academia should proactively contribute to the evaluation of new therapies, development of controlled access models, and exploration of sustainable pricing frameworks. Establishing independent, multi-purpose disease registries would enhance post-authorization monitoring and evidence generation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.